I always wonder what these surveys would look like if, prior to taking it, the respondent got a lesson in the host of existing federal gun laws.

It’s easy to clamor for more laws when you have no idea what laws are already on the books, or you realize that most gun laws are used merely by prosecutors to force plea bargains (e.g. plea to the drug charge, & we’ll drop the gun charge).

… And I always wonder what these surveys would look like if, prior to taking it, the respondent got a lesson in being the victim of gun violence. I have been in this situation.

The antagonist was an NRA model gun owner – a farmer who owned guns for protecting his livestock from “vermin,” for hunting, and for “self-defense”. He had no criminal record, no history of psychological problems, and no violent past.

His victims were his partner, who had just confronted him about a clandestine romantic relationship he was having with a 17 year old girl, and me, whom his partner had asked for assistance and support during the confrontation.

When told that his relationship was not acceptable, the perpetrator calmly said, “There is one way to handle this.” He got up from the kitchen table, walked to the barn, got his rifle, and then pursued us on foot and subsequently (when we hastily drove away) in his vehicle.

Although this incident happened over a decade ago, I cannot forget the terror of fleeing this calm, deliberate hunter. I cannot forget driving wildly into a hedgerow with pounding pulse to hide, and watching my pursuer speed past with the rifle barrel protruding from the window of his pickup. I cannot forget the determined, remorseless, and relentless expression on his face as he executed his attack.

Let anyone who opposes gun violence reduction measures experience this, and see how his survey response is altered.

Epilogue: After a cell phone call to 911, the perpetrator was apprehended by his friend, the local sheriff’s deputy. He explained that he was on the way to the local gun shop to sell his rifle so that he could afford to pay the legal fees he anticipated, and was accompanied with sympathy and sorrow, but without legal charges, to the shop – where the rifle was purchased and subsequently resold.

A terrible experience, I’m sure, and it is unfortunate that you had to live through it. But I can just as easily find a dozen stories where the victim was happy to have had a gun, or wish they had. So we would temper your story with one of theirs.

As for your perpetrator, it’s easy to avoid those pesky charges that would pop up in a background check when you are friends with the local LEOs. Which is less and indictment on guns, & more on how easy it is to subvert rural law enforcement.

I was held hostage once in Tucson during the robbery of a convenience store. The gunman calmly held the barrel of a .45 automatic to my head while the clerk of the store emptied the cash register. He told the clerk that if he didn’t cooperate, my brains would be blown out. After the robbery, the gunman fled across a vacant lot and disappeared into a housing development. The police kept me all day and told me they would be in touch with me once the perpetrator was caught. That was thirty-two years ago and I am still waiting. I am now a member of the NRA and have a concealed carry permit. Despite being within a hair’s width of having my brains blown out, I am not anti-gun, nor a sniveling coward like Mr. Wagner. I’m sure if my right to a gun was limited, that wouldn’t stop the guy that robbed the Circle K from getting one.

In a very narrow sense, you and the NRA are right, MRS. “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” Guns are simply tools.
As I learned from the incident related above, this is exactly what makes guns so dangerous. People – especially people with malicious intent – are cowards. My antagonist did not have the courage to assault and threaten, injure, or kill my friend and me with bare hands, knife, or club, even though that would certainly have been more expedient. Instead, he chose to use a gun – a tool with which he could inflict his evil from a comfortable and detached distance.
I believe that gun “advocates” and “opponents” can find common ground if we stop focusing on guns, and instead concentrate on the “cowardly violent action at a distance” aspect of human behavior which is enabled by guns, bombs, drones, and other modern tools of violence (including violent films and video games). We all agree upon that, and perhaps there we can find a way forward together.

Mr Klein, your attack upon me as a “sniveling coward” is curious. I somehow fail to see cowardice in my behavior, voluntarily placing myself in a situation which both my friend and I perceived to be dangerous enough to require her protection. Perhaps your definition of “cowardice” is that I did not arm myself with a gun before the confrontation, and gallantly engage in an exchange of wild west style gunfire to protect my friend.

Mr. Wagner:

I agree. Stop focusing on the distraction, and instead focus on the culture that says it’s OK to vent your rage through violence against another human.

MRS given that LEO is permissive (your assertion) (unless in large cities – my assertion), then wouldn’t it be more effective to have federal laws to aid preventing these incidents? While focusing on the culture that it’s says OK to vent rage through violence, do you expect the culture to change to prevent these incidents any time soon? Do you have any ideas that will help and agreeable to 100% of the population? Do you know why we have the gun death rate that we do?

SK do you want laws to indemnify you if you use your gun and you shoot an innocent individual?

We do have federal laws preventing such behavior, but who enforces those laws? The Blue Wall of Silence is a tough shell to crack.

First of, our overall violent crime rates, including our gun violence rates, have been steadily going down, to the point that we are at half of what we had 20 years ago.

Second, we have a culture of violence in large part to the drug war (which can be tied to a large number of the gun crimes), but also because we, as a society, send a dangerous mixed message. Our media glorifies violence, but our social institutions (schools, social services, etc.) abhor it and treat even the smallest hint of it as something that must be quashed immediately (re: Kids getting in trouble at school for defending themselves, or for drawing a picture of a gun, etc.).

Oddly enough, we do something very similar with sex.

Maybe if we ended the war on drugs, & stopped giving gangs a reason to fight over drug turf, or merchandise. Maybe if we changed the way we treat violence, tone it down in media, and help children deal with the violence in their nature constructively, we can change the culture. It won’t be perfect, & people like the aggressor in Mr. Wagners tale will still be around, empowered by the fact that law enforcement will grant them the benefit of the doubt. We will still have street gangs killing each other over crap.

But it will be probably better.

PS If you use a gun in legitimate self defense & accidentally hurt or kill someone, in most states, you will not be criminally charged.

Luckily such occurances are as rare as hens teeth.

Most of the violence in the world today does NOT involve guns as most people know them. This issue is political “circus” for the masses.